 |
 |
Mannie What I am trying to suggest here is that if you state you are a secular & therefore non religious organisation you may do it for the best of reasons. Given however that actual patterns of religious commitment does vary among differing groups it one of those neutral statements that affects different groups in a way that has indirect implications. Ged Emmanuell Kusemamuriwo wrote: > > Dear Ged, > > I think the bottom line on all discriminatory practice, has to be the law, > both its letter and I think more ideally, its spirit. So whatever situation > we are faced with, we know that we can resort to legislative requirements, > if all human endeavours fail. Though I would like to know a bit more of what > you mean by "indirect discrimination" relative to York. > > Regards > Mannie > > Mannie Kusemamuriwo > Policy Adviser: Ethnicity & Cultural Diversity > Equality Challenge Unit > 3rd Floor, 4 Tavistock Place > London WC1H 9RA > > Tel 020 7520 7063 > Fax 020 7520 7069 > [log in to unmask] > > -----Original Message----- > From: gam1 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 25 July 2002 10:24 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Religion > > I think this is a very interesting debate raising a number of complex > questions. York being a product of the 60s was established as a secular > institution which was probably seen then as being a liberal gesture but > ends up being indirect discrimination. > Ged Murray > > "Robinson, Elaine" wrote: > > > > Dear Mannie and Anwar > > > > Should there not be inclusion of 'non-religious' groups amongst this, for > > example Humanitarians - and other such 'non-believing' or agnostic > groups? > > > > Elaine > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anwar Naseem [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: 24 July 2002 18:07 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: Religion > > > > Dear All > > > > Mannie thank you for your excellent and thought provoking response. > > > > Perhaps I can help colleagues a little in this case. Please find attached > > JMU's policy on cultural and religious diversity and information on a > range > > of faiths/ beliefs. > > > > The Policy has been used to trigger some best practice developments > > including: > > > > 1. introduction of Halal/ kosher diet in all JMU and Students Union > > refectories; > > 2. short break during exams to break fast during Ramadhan; > > 3. re-arranging exams for students unable to attend due to particular > > religious requirements such > > as Jewish students; > > 4. equally staff have also utilised this policy to take time out for > > particular events/ dates. > > > > A most recent development relates to a staff audit which we undertook in > > February 2002 asking staff to share information on religious background/ > > sexual orientation amongst a range of other equality indicators. The > > question on religion was worded as follows: > > > > Religion: I would describe my religious background/beliefs > as > > ___________________ > > > > I have no religious > > beliefs______________________________ > > > > >From a response rate of 44% (of 2500) staff at JMU professed to belong to > 20 > > faith/ denominations and/ or held alternative beliefs. Majority of staff > > (58%) acknowledged belonging to the Christian faith. Whilst a third (30%) > > professed to having no religious belief. > > > > Finally awareness raising for staff is delivered through mandatory > training > > programmes (for the past 7 years) on Cultural Diversity and Disability > > Awareness. > > > > I trust this is helpful to colleagues in the sector aiming to develop > > consistent and pro-active support. > > > > Regards, > > > > Naseem Anwar > > > > Senior Adviser Equality & Policy Development > > Liverpool John Moores University > > The Mews > > 7 Roscoe Street > > Liverpool > > L1 2SX. UK > > Tel: (00 44)0151-231 3188 > > Email: [log in to unmask] > > > > website: > > http://cwis.livjm.ac.uk/pws/equalopportunities/ > > > > latest publication: > > www.chelt.ac.uk/el/philg/gdn/disabil/mobility/index.htm > > > > learn to sign your name: > > www.bda.org.uk > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Emmanuell Kusemamuriwo [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > >Sent: 24 July 2002 16:52 > > >To: [log in to unmask] > > >Subject: Re: Religion > > > > > > > > >Dear Virginia, > > > > > >Thanks for your response and further request. I would like to > > >commend the > > >fact that you are looking at Equality and Diversity issues for your > > >institution. This is a practice that I would advise all institutions to > > >adopt, though it is pertinent to point out that when we do > > >this, we must > > >make sure that all the areas that constitute equality and > > >diversity, are > > >being addressed, equally,fairly and squarely. This needs to be > > >effectively > > >and consistently done otherwise we are in danger of making > > >diversity into a > > >"comfortable" conscience assuaging way of still implementing some > > >institutional discriminatory practices. The only way of assuring true > > >diversity is by underpinning it with equality and from an > > >explicit point of > > >view where we can actually show evidence of mainstreaming > > >diversity within > > >institutional practice. This also takes it out of the > > >idiosyncratic box of > > >"it's not my responsibility" to acknowledging that if it is a > > >mainstream > > >institutional responsibility,then we all have to identify where our > > >responsibilities, accountabilities and liabilities are in > > >being expected to > > >practically reflect this institutional commitment. > > > > > >Religion and sexual orientation, though intended to be > > >legislated for, by > > >December 2003, could be considered, with all the other areas > > >of intended > > >legislation (Disability adjustments, by October 2004 and Age, > > >by December > > >2006)as areas of working towards institutional best practice. > > >I think it > > >would be much more comfortable and practical, for institutions to start > > >considering now, instead of waiting till the legislation > > >demands it, how we > > >can embrace all these Equality and Diversity areas into our current > > >institutional practice. We certainly would not want to go > > >through the same > > >experiences as we are, under the RRAA. > > > > > >In order to effectively do this and to answer your query on > > >religion, we > > >could use the RRAA template, as based on the CRE Statutory > > >Code of Practice > > >and Guides. All we would need to do is substitute the word > > >race for the word > > >religion and the rest is relative. I know there are some > > >issues concerning > > >the official categories etc. which I think legislation will > > >define, but we > > >could start thinking around the whys, whats, whens, and with > > >whoms, around > > >religion. We could also start to monitor, in order to build up > > >a picture of > > >what religions we have in our institutions, centring our > > >thinking around the > > >RRAA template. After all equality and diversity is about > > >establishing the > > >needs of our employees and learners so that we can effectively > > >address them. > > >This is the spirit that the law is trying to promote through > > >its letter. So > > >in the end, whether certain religions are defined as legal or > > >not, it might > > >still be useful for us as institutions, to find out what > > >religious beliefs > > >exist in our institutions, in order for us to be able to > > >effectively address > > >any challenges that may arise. > > > > > >I do accept that these are complex issues that will be very > > >demanding and > > >taxing but I do not think that this is a good enough reason > > >for us not to > > >"grasp this nettle" as some of us might see it. Also we have > > >each other to > > >work with and I am sure with our sum total, we will "know a > > >man/woman who > > >can" > > > > > >Monitoring religion also raises issues of staff support and/or > > >training that > > >can only be provided by appropriate trainers who are aware of > > >the issues and > > >how they should be addressed effectively and sensitively, so > > >as to benefit > > >and not alienate those of us who will need to implement the various > > >consultation, communication and monitoring strategies. > > > > > >The other issues to consider of course are that certain > > >religious groups > > >like Muslims, Jews and Sikhs are already covered by the RRAA, > > >indirectly for > > >Muslims and directly for the other two, because they are also minority > > >ethnic groups. > > > > > >A word of caution, can colleagues please desist from using the > > >word "ethnic" > > >as a substitute for "black and minority ethnic groups." Not > > >only can this be > > >offensive and insulting to some people but also we must > > >remember that all > > >religions are either minority ethnic or majority ethnic since > > >we all belong > > >to different ethnic backgrounds, it really depends where you > > >happen to be, > > >geographically. > > > > > >As far as religious practices and the curriculum are concerned, then my > > >advice would be for institutions to find out about practices and what > > >material is available, from the appropriate religious groups, contact > > >numbers and addresses can be made available, as Mohammed > > >Dhalech from Oxford > > >has already done. When it comes to safeguarding the rights of > > >those who have > > >no religious beliefs and dealing with beliefs that conflict with > > >legislation, then I would advocate that we are guided by best practice > > >intentions under what British equality law dictates. This way > > >diversity will > > >indeed and truly be based on equality, fairness and justice, > > >under British > > >law and not on what individuals think should happen. > > > > > >Any comments are most welcome. > > > > > >Regards > > >Mannie. > > > > > > > > > > > >Mannie Kusemamuriwo > > >Policy Adviser: Ethnicity & Cultural Diversity > > >Equality Challenge Unit > > >3rd Floor, 4 Tavistock Place > > >London WC1H 9RA > > > > > >Tel 020 7520 7063 > > >Fax 020 7520 7069 > > >[log in to unmask]